Sebastian Vettel may have barely turned 21, but the young German's engaging sense of humour is such that he can quote passages from Monty Python and Little Britain. The surprise winner of last Sunday's Italian Grand Prix probably allowed himself a wry grin when he discovered that Lewis Hamilton and McLaren appeared to have taken a cue from Fawlty Towers during qualifying the previous day when a sequence of bizarre decisions arguably cost them the race.

If Vettel showed exceptional maturity and competence on his way to becoming the youngest grand-prix winner, then Hamilton used his familiar skill in treacherous conditions to produce an aggressive drive that was not adequately rewarded by seventh place and the handful of points that were barely sufficient to continue his lead of the championship. Hamilton could have been leading by nine points instead of one going into next weekend's Singapore Grand Prix. Had he qualified, as expected, in the top four rather than 15th, then Hamilton would have taken the fight to Vettel and, with the greatest respect to the Toro Rosso driver, probably beaten him.

Hamilton can only blame himself and his engineer for appearing to be too clever during qualifying by trying to second-guess the weather instead of simply going on to the track and doing the job he does best. Dithering over the choice of tyre was not necessary at this midway point of qualifying, since the aim of any established front runner was simply to be among the 10 fastest drivers, a task Hamilton had achieved with ease at every race since his debut in March 2007. The extraordinary tactic chosen by Hamilton was seized on by some as a hint of the arrogance that appears to be colouring opinion among his fellow drivers, if not observers in the paddock.

It was interesting to compare the reaction to Vettel's win and Hamilton's maiden victory in Canada last year. A first-time winner is always a welcome event given its rarity - saying that, Vettel was the third in this exceptional season - and it is a delight to share the obvious joy of the moment as a driver attains one of the major goals he has dreamt about for most of his life.

Vettel possesses a happy-go-lucky nature fed by the absence of pressure when driving for the smallest team in F1. Toro Rosso will not give McLaren and Ferrari sleepless nights for the remaining four races unless, as at Monza last weekend, the weather reduces technical advantage and diverts the emphasis to driver skill and good fortune.

For Hamilton, the pressure was immediate in 2007: he had signed for a top team and had the expectation of at least finishing on the podium. The fact that Hamilton was able to do that in the first nine races of his F1 career was not only a sign of his undeniable talent but also a source of irritation for his more experienced rivals. They could not use the hackneyed excuse of Hamilton having the best car, thanks to the youngster making good use of it to frequently humble Fernando Alonso, who remains one of the best drivers in the field this season given his relentless efforts in a below-par Renault.

It should be no surprise that five drivers at Monza took the opportunity to agree that Hamilton had gained an advantage thanks to overtaking Kimi Raikkonen during that controversial move in Belgium the week before. On the other hand, the fact that Nico Rosberg, a long-time friend of Hamilton, was among the quintet should be taken as a representative sample of paddock opinion on a matter that will be discussed in an FIA appeal court in Paris tomorrow.

It is widely agreed that, even though Hamilton allowed Raikkonen to retake the lead at Spa, his previous move had brought him closer to the Ferrari than he otherwise might have been and in a position to overtake at the next corner. The main point of contention is the FIA's handling of the subsequent stewards' enquiry and the inappropriate 25-second penalty that dropped Hamilton from first to third in Belgium.

The governing body itself appears to be in confusion, particularly after Max Mosley, the president of the FIA, said that McLaren should not have asked the race director, Charlie Whiting, for an opinion during the race and Whiting should not have given one. The teams have been united in their surprise since the radio link with Whiting was supposed to bring instant clarity to a potentially controversial moment such as this.

McLaren's defence tomorrow is likely to hinge on Whiting having twice said, in his considered opinion, that Hamilton had done nothing wrong. If Whiting's view had been to the contrary, McLaren would have instructed Hamilton to drop behind Raikkonen for a second time. Perhaps Mosley's interesting interpretation is a prelude to the FIA using the occasion to gain F1 - and the FIA president himself - useful credibility by allowing the appeal. Either way, the fuss over the Belgian Grand Prix will do nothing to detract from a much happier aftermath in Italy a week later.